rangerx

You don't. It's not your money. You don't get to tell anyone how to spend money you've already spent. Even if you did, wouldn't you rather spend a dollar now than a hundred dollars later into the welfare system supporting an unwanted pregnancy? Since Obamacare, unwanted pregnancy and abortions are at historic lows. Likewise fewer clandestine abortion clinics and child abandonment cases. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-abortion-rates-20170117-story.html

I didn't address this part in my other response, so I will now. I didn't know. I have no idea if it's true or not. I cannot be expected to know everything everywhere, simply because you think I should. To that end, a citation is necessary. But for the sake of this discussion at this moment, I'll offer you the benefit the doubt. If it were true, you seem certain of their direction, but does that incident(s) invalidate their origin, in your book? I know it does in waitforwtf's, narrative of denial, but not so sure in yours, because you have mentioned something previously (albeit minor). And by the way MigL, I never suggested you're a racial bigot, just a political one.

I have not read these so called "liberal opinions of the ACLU" that exist in your head. All I know is what you say are just talking points from your opinion and little else, no less your fractured version of the American experience. I'm quite aware that free speech is a thing that exists. It's also quite evident you're lacking the same reading comprehension as MigL in this thread. So let me say it one more time, but this time I'll break it up and give it to you in small doses. And I quote: I condemn censorship in the strongest terms. Do i need to tie it up in a pink ribbon and spray perfume on it to make it any more obvious? I'm sure Berkley sticks in your craw. In case you can't comprehend, I'm agreeing with you. It sticks in mine too. Violently opposing free speech is an issue some people need to address. I underlined "some" because it already was bolded. Then MigL comes along a suggests I can't bring myself to denounce some (bolding mine) of the militant actions of BLM. Do I need to tie it to a banner then tie it to a bi-plane then tow it across the sky to demonstrate I'm agreeing with you and him? Or does the fact a liberal might actually agree with you on something seem like impossible concept? Apparently so because.... Most liberals agree with me, but you'll have none of it. Most liberals strongly uphold free speech. Simply because of your extremist agendas, are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that. Likewise, your unwillingness to acknowledge the plight of the BLM community at it's grassroots (to his credit, MigL has), instead relentlessly trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by feeding into the narrative they are nothing but a bunch of violent ingrates, is entirely bogus and bigoted.

Are you freaking blind? Apparently. Even to the point of making shit up after I've already clearly stated my position on the matter. Try reading a whole thread sometime, instead of grasping at straws to make a gotcha troll.

I equivocated nothing. I said both exist. I have no opinion of liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech because I'm not certain such a thing even exists and as such there's no burden for me to prove anything. If it does, it may or may not reflect me or my liberal views. Once again you fail painting liberals with a wide brush. In case you hadn't noticed. I'm talking about you as a conservative, not others as conservatives.

Well, white supremacy exists. Liberalism exists. Apples and oranges, but your stance is that because the two are not the same that fruit does not exist.

It's because of your lack of introspection. The very thing you are wagging your finger at everyone else here about.

False equivalence, across the board. if you read back, the n-word is a last resort not the first. Toeing that line makes you a moderate-to-strong bigot, one step short of an extremist. And just so you know, I condemn censorship in the strongest terms. I'm sure Berkley sticks in your craw. Violently opposing free speech is an issue some people need to address. Let's not kid ourselves, reverse racism exists too. Most liberals agree with me, but you'll have none of it. Your narrative is liberal bad conservative good, period. The difference being, I am able and willing to address the underlying issues. Not like you, who conflates those issues into something they're not.

We hear all kinds of phony righteous indignation about players taking a knee at a football game lately. An affront to soldiers, the flag and all that yankee doodle dandy nonsense in complete absence of the real issue and it's underpinnings. Police brutality. Then of course there's the Westboro Baptist Church, who in reality, daily stalk and harass the families at funerals of fallen soldiers with horrible slurs, disruptive behavior, religious zeal, homophobic hate speak. Let's not ignore their high level of broadly perverse indoctrination among their children and followers. Yet nary a word from the likes of waitforufo who broadly condemns liberals for perception but not conservatives for their actions. waitforufo is right-wing bigot by default, not reality. Using the n-word is not the standard that crosses the line of bigotry, it's merely a last resort when all other discord and hostility has failed. Last time I checked, Nazi and Neo-Nazi groups are violent groups. Violence was how they were destroyed and they rise again. Violence is all they understand. I read back, but nothing by waitforufo condemning nazi violence. Nada. Zip. Yet here he stands, insisting everyone repudiate everyone he demands. Hypocrisy at it's height.

I agree on this point and only somewhat on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very good for referencing most common knowledge facts, but it's not without errors. Hence ought to be cross-referenced for accuracy rather than outright dismissed by mere virtue of it's presence. The suggestion it's entirely wrong across the board is just another example of denial. The same goes for conspiracy theorists and climate deniers that science itself is a conspiracy of compliance and nefarious indoctrination. Deniers endlessly suggest data is fudged to further agendas and students are fed talking points by their handlers. Bare with me for a few moments and I'll get to where this is critical to climate change toward the end, because if I can figure it out... anyone should be able to understand. My entire career is based upon challenging the status quo. I'm a pearl farmer. For more than a hundred years, there's been a myriad of myths, supposedly irrefutable science and secrecy surrounding the industry. When I was just a child of eight (early 1960s), while at a family reunion at a resort lake in central Canada, I discovered freshwater mussels and was mesmerized by the rainbow iridescence of their shells . My mom wore pearls, her mom wore pearls and her mom wore pearls, but all of them and my father told that pearls only came from Japan and was a closely guarded secret. To that end I said hah! and promised myself I would endeavor to unlock those secrets. Historically, most natural pearl beds were long diminished, if not decimated. Nobody left to interview, next to no publications available. Just biology text books explaining basic shell structures. By the late 1970s, black and south-sea pearls were being cultivated in Australia and Pacific Islands. Most of my inquiries were ignored. The few I had gotten were met with "too cold up there" or "no pearl bearing species" exist in my area. I didn't accept that. I was certain, if it can grow a shell, it can grow a pearl, even though I'd yet to understand why, or how. Soon after I graduated, I moved to the Pacific side to get a job as a deep sea diver, harvesting geoducks. Being a seasonal thing, I branched into collection of other species for labs. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (red tides) and fecal coli-form counts. Acorn barnacles for spinal cord research, mussels for underwater adhesive glue, octopus growth rates and the list goes on and on. I found my first pearl eating a plate of fried mussels. While cooking destroyed it's surface quality, I gained a clue to where they formed in the animal. Doing random surveys on reefs, I discovered other pearls. Over the years, I discovered thousands of pearls. From those discoveries, patterns emerged. Using this data, I could now begin target areas of high incidence. It soon became apparent that a simple grain of sand causing a pearl was not as simple we were led to believe. I started pushing grains of sand into every and any part of the mussel, but almost always failed. By almost, I discovered, that getting an object between the mantle and shell resulted in a pearl like formation, but were stuck to the shell. Mollusks seem like simple creatures, but in reality are quite complex. While a clam is a clam is a clam in how they grow, they have markedly different traits in their behavior, habitat and appearance. However, the function of the mantle is pretty much the same across the board without expanding on the difference between pterioda and pteriomorphia (namely pearl oysters and mussels). One fine day, I got a tiny bit of leaked information from Japan. My source ended up being charged and convicted (even shunned) for divulging it, because the then standing Diamond Standard prohibited any Japanese citizen to reveal any aspect of pearl culture technology to non-nationals, without strict conditions and permission. It was a patent by a supposed author of the Mise-Nishigawa procedure of a tool called a cell needle. I asked myself, why would pearl culture use a cell needle? By going back to the drawing board, I would strive to find the cells in question. The mantle was where pearls and shells formed, hence deduced epithelial cells might be implicated, after all, the natural pearls I had found were surrounded by them. A pearl sac, if you will, but still at a loss as to onset. I became more proficient with microscopy and instruments over time, then began placing grains of sand and shell into the epithelium, but no longer at random. Instead in recorded positions for later reference. Low and behold, I got a few pearls to grow, but no great numbers. Examining the scruffy successes, I concluded that pearls grow in the epithelium if it's perforated in a manner similar of preventing scarring in human skin when getting stitches. The cells needed to multiply and divide, bridging the gaps created by the incision. It happens in nature when shells get damaged and break. New shell material bridges the gaps. I solved one problem, but had another greater problem. My pearls were tiny, misshapen and had no value as gems. I knew I was still missing something important. Then another fine day a few years later, I caught an octopus for dinner. It was missing one and a half tentacles from what seemed like a predator attack. While I was cutting it in the sink, my knife contacted a hard object and out popped a near perfectly round 7mm pearl. Now I'm really confused. How does an animal that does not have a shell create a pearl? Microscopy reveal the pearl was nearly identical in structure to a Butter Clam (Saxidomus gigantea). It was then, I had my eureka moment. An octopus is a mollusk. All mollusks have green blood (copper based as opposed to iron in most animals), hence most mollusks have compatible tissue types. Octopus eat clams. The pearl was found less than a centimeter from the beak. During his meal, a tiny piece of the clam's mantle tissue lodged itself in the healing scar of the octopus and formed a pearl. The cat was out of the bag and the secret of pearl culture was revealed. Today's cultured pearls are the result of an epithelial trans-graft from a donor to a recipient. Color and structure is determined by the donor, not the recipient. The recipient is merely a surrogate. Almost the entire premise that a pearl is formed by an "irritant" is nonsense. Irritation causes inflammation. Inflammation causes disease and other stresses. Disease and stress causes mortality. The only example where it may be the case, I have already described as my first result. A grain of sand in the extrapallial space. But that's not a pearl as we know them. Most pearls are cause by parasites, physical damage or auto-immune disease. Only a tiny fraction of one percent are the result of grains of sand. Today's cultured pearls are grown by placing a small piece of mantle tissue from the donor over top of a shell bead nucleus them placed within connective tissues and the bloodstream of the host mollusk's gonads. This allowed the cells to keep living, multiplying and dividing to form a pearl sac and subsequently higher success in productivity. Now, what does this have to do with climate change you ask? Well, it's very simple really. In my area, I do free range pearling for both natural and cultural pearls. I have had tenure for twenty four designated marine stations since 1983. Over the years, I've noticed changes in the mussels, especially at the perimeter of the beds. What were once thick, vibrant shells are now thin egg-like shells. Most I can crush by hand, opposed to the top of the reefs where doing so is not possible, unless with excessive force which can cause lacerations... even amputations. All living things need calcium. Mollusks uptake calcium and carbonate ions from water. In times of quiescence, low salinity, freezing temperatures mollusks do not eat and if they do, only ingest small cell organisms. As their soft tissues need calcium, they are able to "revert" from building shells to dissolving them with naturally formed acids then re-metabolizing the solution. It leaves distinctive signatures on the inner lining of the shells. and can be measured for thickness, rate and duration. Like the rings of a tree, a mollusk has growth periods. In my area, they grow actively for ten months then go into a two month semi hibernation-like period. This gives the distinct signature of nine visible layers per year. 10 -1=9 After all, the last layer is reabsorbed. But that's not what's happening on the lower fringes of the biomass of the intertidal zone. The lower in levels, the longer the submersion. The longer the submersion in a gradually lowering ph is measurable against those on the top of the reef. The evidence is clear, because the reefs are dying, slowly. The radius is shrinking, even though the greater number of animals present do not appear affected. They are, but to a lesser degree. California mussels have no commercial or recreational value in my area. Some by sewage some by natural toxins. They are full of sand, tiny pearls etc. and break teeth. Other than a few sea stars, they have no predators. Even in the past few years, sea stars had mass mortality by a densovirus, but are slowly recovering. Yet reef decline is still accelerating. I have one marine station that adds valuable data to my research. An island of shells, created by winds and tides from the reef below. Archaeological surveys present data of shell size and thickness. The deeper I go, the shells get thicker, even though they've degraded slightly. I don't need a lab, I don't need elaborate measuring tools other than a caliper to observe and record the evidence. Even a layperson I take there for the first time can clearly see the difference with their own eyes and no tools. It's that obvious. So in closing, Japan has experienced a catastrophic decline in their biwas (lakes) because of this problem. Rising temperatures, lower ph and every consequence that results such as disease, parasites and lack of oxygen. Pollution is also a factor, but not singularly underlying. Not one Japanese pearl farmer denies climate change and human involvement in their destruction. Only one lake remains in production out of dozens in the past. After nearly a century of protectionism and productivity, does anyone in their right mind think that Japan would needlessly end one of it's greatest industries to tout a liberal conspiracy? Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, no matter how it's created. Man made carbon dioxide is not inert, no matter how many times or how loudly a person denies it's effect on the marine environment. The more you create, the the greater it's dissolved in water creating carbonic acid, hence the lower the ph our oceans become, preventing carbonate from be utilized in animal recruitment. It's that simple. A child can figure that out. The assholes that claim that climate change is a hoax to deprive working people of their jobs, are the very people who are depriving people of their jobs by their ignorance and ideology. Period.

This is an international forum and as much as you'd like to believe it, it's not the constitution of the free world. It's an archaic document violently achieved in protest of the crown (how ironic is that). Once again, iterating the false narrative that ANTIFA is inherently violent, therefore all liberals are inherently violent. Trump tried that and failed, as do you. Doubling down only makes it twice as absurd. Is there no abyss too deep to stoop? A lot of outsiders are looking in as Americans pit themselves against each other in ridiculous, hypocritical, contentious and often deadly ways. For lack of a better analogy, your constitution is being perverted in the same manner the jihad perverts the Quran. Liberal, conservative... who cares, y'all look the same to me (to use a common American meme about others). Free speech and freedom of the press are the cornerstones of your constitutional 1st Amendment, while your unhinged leader disrespects both on a daily basis as policy. Even calling for the persecution of those who lawfully protest his actions, yet nary a peep from the malcontent that so loudly claims to be a rigid constitutionalist. Heaven forbid had Obama done that, you'd be screaming impeachment from the rooftops and rounding up your 2nd Amendment buddies, huh? Well, maybe that's a little extreme and don't proclaim it hasn't been said by others, but definitely chanting "Lock him up", right?

I edited the post to remove the redundancy just moments before you posted your response. However as to the second question, I'm pretty sure a ten year old with reasonably average intelligence could answer the question, unequivocally.

That sounds like an admission you have no idea about what it is you're denying, but I'm delighted by your effort to qualify yourself by googling around for something that scarcely rises to the level of Chemistry 101 no less how it applies to biology. It's infinitely more educational to skeptically trust the authority of an erudite than blindly accept the indoctrination of an ideologue. And I already answered your question, which seems to have fallen on blind eyes, so I'll repeat it in a manner that might. It's not my field of expertise. .

It's not my field of expertise. I asked you a specific question from the field that is. Why can't you reply with a straight answer?

Judging by his/her demeanor today I'm speculating their neg quota has been filled.

What part carbon dioxide mixing with seawater creating carbonic acid do you not understand? Are you suggesting only background CO2 causes this and man-made CO2 is inert and as such has no effect on ocean acidification? Just so you know, I'm in my 60s and I've worked with wild and cultured shellfish my entire lifetime. Will this be the part where you tell me that I have nothing better to do than fudge science so I can suck the government teat?

The sheriff gave an indication the placement of counter-surveillance cameras and other evidence (without being too specific for ongoing investigative purposes) that the shooter had plans to escape the scene. With all that explosive material and numerous other rounds in the vehicle, it seems he was prepared for other carnage elsewhere. Suicide bomb? Hit and run? I'm sure the detectives will look for timers or other initiating devices to make a determination as to his overall intent. When the security guard approached the room (perhaps seen on the placed cameras), the shooter strafed 200 rounds through the door and down the hall. Law enforcement said they could see guns through the holes, but not the shooter himself. The door was breached 75 minutes after the first 911 call, even though he was only actively shooting for 12 (or so) minutes. The likelihood of booby-traps was probably a great concern for the tactical team. I suspect once he strafed the door, the shooter knew he wasn't getting out alive and took his own life.

Sheriff Joe Lombardo just mentioned in a news conference, the shooter had several cases of tannerite in his vehicle.

In Canada, police protection(RCMP) is provided by the federal government. There exists mechanisms for communities to provide additional funding for more officers to deal with issues unique to that area. If local governments refuse or de-fund additional resources, enforcement is diminished. It's not because gangs prevailed in tactical superiority. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec fund the OPP and SQ, but the RCMP remains as the lead agency in federal issues.

Stacking the Supreme Court with the lifetime appointments of conservative judges is certain to make things worse, before they get better. Scalia's writing in "individual" pretty much rendered your constitution and gun laws as subjective to expansion when it suits them , yet unassailable to limitation when it doesn't. That boils it down to law makers, who at this time show no willingness to protect the public from domestic terrorism. No. It's because the law isn't broad enough. The parts to convert semi-autos to fully automatic weapons are legally, widely available. There's no practical need for them other than to make guns illegal. Why should anyone facilitate it? To protect you from tyranny?

Much like Kinder Eggs are banned in the USA.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-bill-o-reilly-calls-mass-shootings-the-1506980448-htmlstory.html Rightwingnut Bill O'Reilly claims the Vegas massacre is the price of freedom. He left out the life part of life and liberty which flies in the face of the whole "pro-life" nonsense republicans so loudly and often descry. The shooter had rights to guns, but victims accessing healthcare is a handout on the slippery slope to the gulags. Many of the Las Vegas massacre survivors will need to rely upon the healthcare system for the remainder of their lives. A culture of dependency created by the hypocrites who coined the term in the first place. On one hand Trump EO's a travel ban on some countries under the premise he's proactive in protecting Americans from terrorists shooting down a crowd somewhere. Yet proactive efforts against facilitating domestic evil not so much, or not at all. Seems to me, the greatest threat to Americans, are other Americans. What was once the 2nd Amendment to prevent tyranny by a corrupt leader has been co-opted as a means for tyrants to corrupt gun control and common laws to decimate their own people. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. The NRA and it's government payola recipients claim it's not the time for this discussion. The Cloumbine massacre was 18 years ago, yet the USA hasn't found the time to have the discussion, unless of course one overlooks the fact gun advocates wasted no time staging Hollywood's Charlton Heston for a pro-gun rally... in Colorado. Sandy Hook made mass shootings mainstream and apparently an inevitable, if not acceptable consequence of hoarding guns. My brother and his wife live in Orange County. They recently retired and embarked on trip on Route 66. They were in Vegas last night, but not at the event itself. It was disquieting nonetheless, until we heard from them. There were Canadians among the casualties and likely others from other countries. My heart goes out to all of them and their families.

If the shooter was brown, Trump would scream terror from the rooftops and his minions would parrot it loudly and angrily. I don't need a ton of bricks to fall on my head to know that his deliberate avoidance of the word terrorist was to score points with the NRA and the meager remaining 30% of his base, yet the problem is laid at my feet? Pfft. He's supposed to be a president. When will he start behaving like one? It's not about political points, it's about the truth. Do you deny my point about the hair trigger terrorist epithets he hurls at other groups? Patton Oswald? WTF does that have to do with price of tea in China, or is that just a cheap shot? As to the tragedy, we are in agreement. If Trump doesn't wake up, then how do you expect the rest of the country to do so?

The Las Vegas shooting demolishes the NRA’s “good guy with a gun” argument. It was absurd then, yet how can this statement have any credibility moving forward? Apparently the NRA never heard of positions of advantage as we saw in Las Vegas. Can you imagine the pandemonium if everyone was armed with handguns attempted to shoot back? Clearly everyone else in the hotel would have been at a greater risk. According to Donald Trump, a minority person conspiring to murder people is a branded a terrorist for plotting an attack, even if they never carried it out. He openly advocated bombing their otherwise innocent families. Yet a white citizen with ammonium nitrate in his car and multiple cases of modified or illegal automatic weapons shooting nearly six hundred people at random in a public setting isn't a terrorist? If that's not a classic example of white privilege, then what is it? Agreed, but motive is beside the point. It wasn't an accident. His objective was to scare, injure and murder. Has the attack and responses to Sandy Hook made mass shootings mainstream?